I’ve got a theory... That it’s a demon... A dancing Demon, no something isn’t right there...
Some of you may remember the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical extravaganza. Once More With Feeling, aired on the 6th of October, 2001 and included the musically capable Anthony Head (who was in several bands, released a few CDs and even did the Rocky Horror transvestite role of Dr Frank N Furter some justice) playing Rupert Giles, Buffy’s ‘Watcher’ and the school librarian.
Anthony/Giles’ best song in that episode is titled I’ve Got a Theory... that he sings with pretty much the entire cast.
Law, Health and Technology Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Here it is to refresh your memory:
Covid-19: Let’s recap the theories
With thanks to JJ Couey of GigaOhm Biological for releasing this video that sent me down the rabbit hole, let’s recap the current state of play for the main Covid-19 origin stories. In doing so we will trip over several of the main sub-plots but, as you will see, all they do is add flavour and variation...
...and most don’t actually rise up enough to warrant distinction on their own as a full-blown ‘theory’TM.
1. Natural Batcave Virus Zoonosis
This theory posits that a bat virus emerged from a cave in China and got into humans maybe from a bat taken to a wet market, or maybe it somehow jumped from a bat to us via a pangolin (here and here). Whichever version you prefer the responses to Sars-CoV-2; namely lockdowns, masks, social distancing and vaccines are said to have universally saved lives even as Sars-CoV-2 moved around the world, mutating into different variants in a seemingly organised and systematic pattern.
Note that: (i) the peaks for Alpha all occur fairly close together within about ten days of each other in late Dec’20/early Jan’21; (ii) that the peaks for Delta in the UK and Europe happen simultaneously; (ii) and that the peaks for Omicron in the UK and Europe occur simultaneously with the dramatic escalation of Omicron in Japan.
This virus variation peak ‘synchronisation’ occurred even though, by April 2020, over 80% of flight movements had been restricted across the globe and many remaining flights were mostly moving cargo instead of human passengers - something the World Economic Forum seemed to be very pleased about.
Note the tickertape headline in the top right hand corner of Time Magazine’s website today as I write this... Ukrainian women fear the return of their partners. Many of their partners are apparently refugees in countries like the UK and Ireland. Given social media is awash with what they have allegedly been up to, with numerous accusations that they are harassing teenage girls and committing property-related crimes... I am not surprised at this shameless distraction from the globalist-run mainstream media. Yet another misdirection to divide us and consume our time and energy so that we don’t realise what is actually going on.
2. Laboratory Batcave Virus Zoonosis
While there was still a virus that came from a bat in a cave in China, this theory proposes that the virus didn’t so much emerge as was leaked from the Wuhan laboratory. The virus still travels around the world and systematically mutates into the different variants. In this scenario our responses to Sars-CoV-2 helped some people.
This version also allows for several of the sub-plots to emerge, including:
acknowledgement that our responses to Sars-CoV-2, namely; lockdowns, masks, social distancing, mandates and other policies, and vaccines, also harmed some people - mainly children, those of lower socioeconomic status and the elderly.
that Omicron may also have been a lab-leak, possibly a white-hat ‘vaccine’ lab-leak to help counteract the original Sars-CoV-2 lab-leak.
3. No virus
There is a whole group of people often disparagingly called Covid Deniers today who believe that Sars-CoV-2 (and therefore Covid-19) does not, and never did, exist. Some researchers would have you believe this is simply because they are afraid of vaccination - the so-called vaccine hesitancy claim. Fact checkers disingenuously create round arguments by claiming that statistics on key websites, the existence of mRNA vaccines or PCR tests, or newspaper articles by their fellow mainstream journalists incontrovertably prove Covid-19’s existence (here and here).
In their scenario the disease never existed and the global response to the disease is entirely manipulated and directed by rich globalists like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates with organisations like the World Economic Forum who want to take over and impose a socialist or Marxist regime. While Klaus, Bill and the World Economic Forum clearly have some skin in this game from numerous angles and may indeed be another sub-plot, as JJ Couey points out the No Virus theory is mostly used to simply discredit people, and from what I can see it just sparks social media sharkbaiting and conspiracy theorist feeding frenzies.
However, as we will see in the fourth and final scenario - it is possible that the No Virus scenario has some truth... but it is only one albeit unlikely possibility.
4. Previously Endemic Background
The fourth and final theory says that we live in a world where there are bats, pangolins, Sars, corona and other viruses, and there are laboratories. This theory still contains a lab-leaked but weak virus that potentially even had a pre-existing viral sequence and test kit. This may explain how governments like USA and Australia could claim to have identified their first cases of Sars-CoV-2 with certainty in January 2020, even before any of the supposed test kits had been developed and manufactured. In any event, the virus is leaked either in the Wuhan wet market or possibly at the 2019 World Military Games that were held in October 2019 in Wuhan, and allowed to propagate around the world.
In this scenario they also released a ‘novel’ test for the ‘novel’ virus - the PCR test.
However, as we have previously learned, it didn’t matter which of the Sars-CoV-2 test kits you were tested with, the majority were what is described as multi-virus test kits. With a multi-virus test kit the issue for clinicians and those who receive a positive result can be identifying which virus or bacteria they tested positive to. Many PCR testing kits report testing only for ORF1-based genes that are believed to be specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus1. However, others that are currently in use are not SARS-CoV-2 specific, such as those from AusDiagnostics, and the widely used Roche COBAS, Cepheid GeneXpert (XPCOV2/FLU/RSV-10), GenMark ePlex (EA001222) and BioFire FilmArray (423883) kits that also test positive for a range of other respiratory illnesses2. Some that do claim specificity for SARS-CoV-2 also warn the user that a positive result with their test does not rule out bacterial rather than or in addition to viral infection. Discussions we had with NHS lab staff in late 2020 showed that many labs used older computer systems and software applications to collect and report the test results from the PCR machine across a closed lab network. Some of these systems were so old that they were unable to collect or report when the PCR machine showed that the positive result related to a particular virus - whether Sars-CoV-2 or one of the other viruses the kit could test for. In this way, a positive result to any was being returned as a positive result to Sars-Cov-2, creating part of the pandemic of false positive test results. Flawed and Contaminated RT-PCR Tests added to the pandemic of false positive test results with up to 33% of some RT-PCR covid tests exhibiting issues including elevated false positive rates, false negatives, poor specificity, contamination of primer fluids and reagents or due to poor laboratory practices. And in some cases even design flaws. While the first CDC RT-PCR tests were contaminated and poorly designed and both the FDA and CDC required labs to stop using batches with contaminated or faulty reagents that were later destroyed, self-appointed Fact Checkers evasively said any claims that a CDC test had been revoked were false and that no PCR test had in fact ever been recalled. The fact checkers did this through their common use of misdirection and manipulation of terms, and by focusing on the most recent version of CDC RT-PCR test that has not been entirely without issues and which the CDC have since voluntarily withdrawn from emergency use authorisation.
JJ Couey asserts that the tests were never really specific for the virus they released - and this characterisation appears to be correct when we consider that most were indeed multi-virus test kits. He suggests that if you had the lab-leaked Sars-CoV-2 you might get a stronger positive result, in which case they sequenced your test. Your test result was only sequenced if you tested positive for the spike protein - the so-called S gene. However, if you tested positive to one of the other viruses that the kit also tested for, you might have one or two of the other corona- or influenza-linked sequences but perhaps not the S gene - an “S dropout”. In this case you didn’t really have Sars-CoV-2 and while they told you that you were ‘positive’, they didn’t need or bother to sequence your test. Over time more and more positive test results were returned where the individual was only positive to two or one gene, and with Omicron we even saw the S gene requirement dropped altogether. This means that more and more people were Sars-CoV-2 based on a positive test result that didn’t actually identify the Sars-CoV-2 spike gene, and eventually all we were testing for was the background endemic corona- and flu-viruses.
This was an issue highlighted by Professor Martin Neil in September 2021, when he alerted the editors of the BMJ to the fact that while the manufacturers of Sars-CoV-2 tests stated in their emergency use authorisation applications and package materials that you needed three genes (E, N and S) to test positive, the government’s official releases of test results data showed many labs were returning a positive test result with two, and even sometimes only one gene being identified. In some weeks as many as two-thirds of UK Sars-CoV-2 positive test results were made on a single gene, should therefore be considered as false positives, and collectively account for the even more of the pandemic of false positive test results.
This scenario allows us to accept that:
PCR tests work - it’s just that the tests were never specific for the virus that was released.
Sequencing works - the sequences reported as variants are real but not necessarily real variants of the original Wuhan strain.
The Wuhan sequence is a laboratory creation
There was a real pathology in late 2019, and significant novel respiratory disease (like a bad flu year) around the world that shared a common molecular signal. This is because it is the Wuhan virus that they released.
In theories 1 and 2 you have a virus that didn’t exist before 2019 that, as JJ Couey goes on to say in his video, caused most of the damage that we have seen since 2020. You can variously claim that the global responses to Covid-19 either worked or they didn’t, or that they hurt people or they didn’t, or that they didn’t work in the beginning but as governments came to understand them they got better and better, or that the vaccines are miracle life-savers that can save you from having a car accident, and have saved up to an incredible (meaning: not credible) 20 million lives. In this way the lab leak story becomes mostly irrelevant - yet another distraction in a sea of obfuscations. Both scenarios at least assume the virus is real.
In theory 3 we have the notion that we have nothing to worry about, because there is simply no virus at all.
JJ Couey asserts that there is an active campaign to ensure that you, the general public, fall into line with one of these three camps. You either believe the virus is real and arose from the wet market, or that it is real and leaked from a lab (with or without gain-of-function), or you believe that there is no virus at all. In supporting his assertion I would argue that this is again one of the methods that the globalists and governments are using to both distract you and ensure you remain divided - and far too busy arguing amongst yourselves to see or defend yourselves against what they are really doing behind the curtain.
In theory 4 we find that the majority of deaths were not caused by ‘the virus’, but rather by our responses to the virus - isolation through lockdowns; chest infections caused by the bacterial pneumonia after-response to the virus they released and long-term mask wearing; use of ventilators; and the withholding of potentially useful, practical and cheap early treatments in favour of waiting to use toxic and ineffective novel therapies like Remdesivir and the so-called Covid-19 vaccines.
JJ Couey further asserts that whether or not the transfection protein in the Covid-19 vaccines is intended to cause other health problems (like the clots, bleeds, myocarditis and so on), it is likely that they released a virus that had the spike protein on it they wanted to inject into you and that the vaccines contain that spike protein because it has something in it your immune system simply cannot ignore. However, every time they ‘flare’ your immune system in this way causes you damage, and potentially, erodes your future ability to create an immune response naturally to something in the environment. Your immune system reacts with the spike protein in their jabs and as a result you give a robust antibody response to it every time - so that they can claim their vaccines are an effective product. He concludes by saying we should expect to see this same approach used with other vaccines like the new RSV and fluvax - that they will include some proprietary part that performs the same ‘flare’ function. Rather than actually immunising you against the virus, they simply ensure your immune system shows a response to whatever gene sequence is in the jabs - making their jabs appear effective. In spite of continued claims that vaccine manufacturers need umbrella immunity from liability because they make very little money from their vaccine products, vaccine market share is now a hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-per-year profitable enterprise - just look at the fact that Bill Gates bought into BioNTech for $55mil, and since the value of this investment has risen to over $550mil he is cashing out with the story that the mRNA didn’t work out as he had hoped. When coupled to the fact that Pfizer is said to have made over $2bil profit from the Covid-19 jabs, you have to concede that’s not a bad profit from a supposedly unprofitable segment of the market. If nothing else, it demonstrates that the immunity from liability legislation needs to be reconsidered to stem the tide of yet more ineffective but profitable jabs.
Couey is correct when he says that theory 4 allows for proponents of each of the other three theories to appear, at least in part, correct. Theory 4 even allows for the situation that a politician in a discussion about creating more fear around Covid-19 can be seen to ask the clearly leading question ‘when do we deploy the new variant’ - and the next day, as if by magic, it happens.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
The Law, Health and Technology Substack is a 100% reader supported newsletter. If you like what you have read, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to enable me to continue this work.
We note that many of the tests claiming 100% specificity to SARS-CoV-2 qualify this with confidence intervals that can be as broad as (80 - 100).
For example: The AusDiagnostics SARS-CoV-2 test kit (REF 20081) contemporaneously tests for multiple Influenza Type A (H1, H3, H5 and H7, pdH1N1 and H3N2) and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). A positive result does not indicate which of these viruses was the causative agent, so in theory it could be as a result of recent or even historic exposure to any one of them. Roche have released COBAS tests for SARS-CoV-2 but in the same kit they also test either for Influenza A or both Influenza A and B. Due to poor specificity for SARS-CoV-2 these kits may trigger a positive response from these other coronavirus RNA sequences which would be reported as a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. One COBAS kit also uses an RNA string from the pan-sarbecovirus family in a process to rule out those other coronavirus gene sequences. However, given even poorer specificity for the other coronavirus strains (some as low as 0.71) it is likely that a greater number of false positives than the manufacturer might desire or report still result. For many diagnostic kits it was noted that the manufacturer in-house validation processes tended to only report 2-4 trial uses of the test kit in their instructions for use or dossier materials. We believe this low number of validation tests occurred due to the rapid emergency accreditation processes allowed by some regulators. See also: https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/9629/covid19_diagnosticproducts_list_en.pdf